Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Therapeutic Devices and Procedures

Figure 1. The distribution of results indicates systematic bias (average odds ratios in the randomized, controlled trials and historical controlled studies were 1.23 and 1.06, respectively). Adapted with permission from reference : Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii-x, 1-173.
Figure 1. The distribution of results indicates systematic bias (average odds ratios in the randomized, controlled trials and historical controlled studies were 1.23 and 1.06, respectively). Adapted with permission from reference : Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii-x, 1-173. Comparison of the results of 8000 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and 8000 historical controlled studies (HCTs) obtained from resampling within the European Carotid Surgery Trial.27

This Article

  1. Ann Intern Med June 21, 2005 vol. 142 no. 12 Part 2 1100-1111
  1. AbstractFREE
  2. Figures
  3. Full Text
  4. Full Text (PDF)

Current Issue

  1. December 1, 2009, 151 (11)
  1. Alert me to current issues